The Ninth Circuit BAP recently discussed on appeal the issue of whether a bankruptcy court may use the “fair and equitable” standard for confirmation in § 1129(b) to deny an oversecured creditor default interest on its claim to which it would otherwise be entitled under § 506(b). In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Beltway One Development Group, LLC (In re Beltway One Development Group, LLC), 547 B.R. 819 (9^th Cir.

In its recent opinion in Jerome Listecki, as Trustee of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee Catholic Cemetery Perpetual Care Trust v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, 2015 WL 1010089 (7^th Cir.

It is a familiar issue for in-house counsel and credit managers: though you try to ensure that your key customers are stable, credit-worthy businesses, occasionally one of them will encounter financial trouble and you will hear rumors in the market that your customer is considering filing for bankruptcy protection. This is never good news, of course, but there are several steps you can take to minimize the adverse impact a customer’s bankruptcy filing may have on your business.

Exercise State Law Rights

In a case of first impression, the Ninth Circuit held that the unsecured portion of a secured debt, for which the 

In its opinion in Gray v. Warfield (In re Gray), 523 B.R. 170 (9^th Cir. BAP 2014), the Ninth Circuit BAP held that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Law v. Siegel, 134 S. Ct. 1188 (2014) precludes a bankruptcy court from denying a debtor’s amendment of his claim of exemption on equitable grounds.

In its opinion in LTF Real Estate Company, INc. v. Expert South Tulsa, LLC (In re Expert South Tulsa), 2014 WL 6845675 (10^thCir.

In a case of apparent first impression in the Tenth Circuit, the U.S.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently rendered its decision in the Mwangi case, dealing whether a debtor can assert a claim against his bank for placing an administrative freeze on his bank account pending a determination of the debtor’s exemption claim as to the funds in the account.

If a creditor violates the automatic stay by seizing property of the estate and fails to cure that violation before the debtor files an action under sec. 362(k), may the debtor recover his attorney’s fees for prosecuting the stay violation under sec. 362(k)?  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that, in these circumstances, attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting a stay violation are recoverable by a debtor against the creditor committing the violation.

Citing Ninth Circuit precedent from cases under the Bankruptcy Act, the Ninth Circuit BAP reluctantly held that a pre-petition state court civil contempt proceeding is exempt from the automatic stay of sec. 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.  The decision of the BAP is Yellow Express, LLC v. Mark Dingley (In re: Dingley), 514 B.R. 591 (9^th Cir. BAP 2014).